building inequality: how the lack of facility funding hurts new york’s public charter school...

7/27/2019 Building Inequality: How the Lack of Facility Funding Hurts New Yorks Public Charter School Students

1/28

BUILDINGINEQUALITYHow the Lack of Facility Funding Hurts New YorksPublic Charter School Students


2/28

THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER SCHOOL CENTER is a non-proft organization that helps new charter schools get started,supports existing schools, and builds community support sothat highly eective schools can ourish. The Charter Centerbelieves that charter schools are partners in a larger eort tobuild and maintain a great system o public schools so that allstudents, no matter their background, can participate in societyon air terms.

THE NORTHEAST CHARTER SCHOOLS NETWORK is a regionalcharter school membership organization representing charter

schools in New York and Connecticut. Its mission is to supportand expand the regions high quality charter school movement.The Network ormed ater the New York Charter Schools Asso-ciation (NYCSA) expanded into Connecticut earlier this year. It isthe leading regional advocate and proponent or public charterschools.

THE COLORADO LEAGUE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS is a non-proft,membership organization dedicated to supporting charter schoolsin Colorado and across the nation. The Leagues mission is to im-prove student achievement and expand choice among high qualitypublic schools.

THE CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITIES INITIATIVE inorms policyand practice by collecting and disseminating comprehensivedata regarding the state o charter school access to qualityacilities, and using that data to help inorm charter schoolacilities policies across the nation.


3/28

BUILDINGINEQUALITYHow the Lack of Facility Funding Hurts New YorksPublic Charter School Students


4/28

Building Inequality 4

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17


5/28

How the Lack of Facility Funding Hurts New Yorks Public Charter School Students 1

Executive Summary

New York States public charter schools have grown rom a smallexperiment to a proven catalyst or academic achievement.

Yet charter schools operate at a unique disadvantage: state law

makes no provision or them to have a school acility.

In New York City, ree space provided at the discretion o Mayor

Michael Bloomberg has provided a partial solution to this

problem while masking its true dimensions. For charter schools

outside o district space, in New York City and across the state,

lack o acility unding places a heavy burden on budgets,programs, and ultimately student learning.

In order to gather data about the charter school acilities

landscape, the New York City Charter Center, Northeast Charter

Schools Network, and Colorado League o Charter Schools

worked together to conduct the frst comprehensive survey o

charter school acilities in New York. The results show a proound

and growing inequality in New Yorks system o public schools,with the ast-growing charter school sector orced to re-direct

millions o dollars away rom school operations to pay or school

acilities that the students needbut the state does not pay or.


6/28

Building Inequality 2Building Inequality 2

FINDINGS

1. New York charter schools divertmillions o dollars to cover unundedacility costs.

New York charter schools reported spending an average

of $2,025 per student on facility costs, excluding schools in

district-provided buildings in 2011-12. For an average-sized

school of 254 students, this added up to a yearly funding gap

of $515,137enough to pay salary and benets for six char-

ter school teachers, counselors, or social workers.

In New York City the average facility spending was $2,350

per student for charter schools not in district facilities, the

equivalent of 17.4% of NYC schools designated per-pupil

operations funding. This funding could have been directed tohelp students become college and career ready and provide

professional development to attract, train and retain the best

possible teachers. This represents a $679,150 annual gap for

a school of average size.

Statewide, total spending on charter school facilities

amounted to an estimated $81.7 million in 2011-12, and was

on pace to rise to approximately $93 million in 2012-13.

2. Space in district buildings has beena reliable resource or charterschools only in New York City, due

to a discretionary local policy.Under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City has allowed

charter schools to use space in otherwise under-used school

buildings, colocating with other schools in the same build-

ing just as a majority of City district schools do.

In New York City, 63% of charter schools were colocated

in 2011-12; 62% are colocated in 2012-13. Charter schools

reported space-sharing arrangements with other kinds of

organizations as well, including school service organiza-

tions and unrelated nonprots. Outside of New York City,

survey respondents conrmed that no school district has

shared buildings with charter schools, nor is that expectedto change. Even in New York City, colocation is a matter of

mayoral control, and the next mayor may choose against

colocating new charter schools.

3. Many charter schools do withoutimportant amenities.

Although charter school facilities are subject to health and

safety rules, many charter schools must do without impor-

tant educational amenities. One charter school spent years

without a cafeteria, with students eating lunch at their desks;

at another, crowded conditions led to classes in hallways

and behind curtains. Among survey respondents, fewer thanhalf have a music room, and one in three secondary char-

ter schools does not have a science lab. Exactly half have

libraries, while 98% have at least one room designated as a

gym, cafeteria, auditorium, and/or multi-purpose room.

4. The acilities crunch will intensiy asmore students enroll in charter schools.

New Yorks charter sector is poised for dramatic growth in

the next four years, and not just because of new schools

opening; a majority of existing charter schools are still adding

new grade levels each year as they build out to full size.

Among survey respondents, 73% of charter schools plan toincrease their enrollment from 2011-12 to 2015-16, but over

50% of growing charter schools report that their present

space will not be adequate to accommodate anticipated

growth. The driving cause of this growth, of course, is New

York families steady demand for charter schools, wherever

they open.

To meet this demand, and to help New York State meet its

ambitious goals for college and career readiness, the state

is likely to need 41,000 to 45,000 new charter school seats

in the next four years. With New York City colocation likely

to slow, charter schools statewide will need to rent, lease,

or build facilities for at least 30,000 new students in the nextfour years.

DISCUSSION

To receive a high-quality public education, students need

both equitable resources and adults who make the most

of them. Charter schools must use the exibility afforded

them in effective ways to benet students. But its up to

lawmakers to provide equitable resources.

As more families choose charter schools and the once-ex-

perimental charter sector grows, many of the statesdecade-old choices about charter school policy have been

revisited. Its time to look again at charter schools facility

needs.

New Yorks charter schools are public schools without

public support for their school buildings. Charter school

students are effectively shortchanged by millions of dollars

as their schools divert operating funds from teachers, psy-

chologists, counselors, and other critical needs, simply to


7/28


8/28


A Queens Tale

In Long Island City, Queens, New York, theres a mathproblem at Growing Up Green Charter School.

Growing Up Green is an independent, elementary char-

ter school in its fourth year of operation. The school is

philosophically progressive and remarkably diverse, with

students whose families speak 25 different languages.

For school leader Matthew Greenberg, a veteran educator

and former chapter leader in the teachers union, Growing

Up Green is a labor of love. For parents, the school is a

trusted and tight-knit learning community.

For the community at large, the school is a neighborhood

asset, and, in an area where school space is tight, a sourceof much-needed seats. Thats because Growing Up Green

operates in a privately-owned facilitywhich is where the

math problem comes in.

In New York State, public charter schools do not receive

public funding to cover their facility-related expenses. At

Growing Up Green, as parent Erin Boyle Acosta testied

before Governor Andrew Cuomos Education Reform Com-

mission in 2012:

The rent we pay for this space is not covered by outside

donors, nor have we asked to colocate in a district school

building [in our crowded district]. Instead, we stretchour share of what New York City spends to operate a

schoolour money for teachers and supplies, in other

wordsand extend it to also pay the rent.

The rent adds up to about $500,000 each school year, which

Growing Up Green must redirect from its operating budget.

Though the school balances its budget, it operates at a seri-

ous disadvantage compared to traditional public schools.

The average revenue disparity at New York City charter

schools in private buildings is about $1,300 per student,

per year, based on calculations by the Citys Independent

Budget Ofce.1

Even those calculations understate the gap,since they are based on what is paid to service the debt on

existing school buildings, rather than what would be needed

to procure new ones.

This is not a temporary gap. It is not an oversight, nor a

glitch. This is how New York State structures its funding for

a vital sector of public education.

As the teachers at Growing Up Green are well aware,

$500,000 would pay for lots of books, trainings, and even

extra colleagues to share their important work.

Public Schools, BYOB (Bring Your OwnBuilding)

Since they rst opened in 1999, New York States public

charter schools have grown from a small experiment to a

vibrant movement, raising student achievement and chal-

lenging conventional wisdom across the state. Yet public

charter schools operate at a unique disadvantage: state lawmakes no provision for them to have a school facility.

For a majority of charter schools in New York City, free

space provided by the local Department of Education has

provided a limited solution to this problem (see sidebar). For

all other charter schools in New York City and across the

state, the lack of access to public facilities or facility funding

places a heavy burden on budgets, programs, and ultimately

student learning.

To document New York charter schools facilities and their

costs, this report presents the results of New Yorks rst

statewide survey of charter school facilities. The survey was

conducted by the New York City Charter School Center, the

Northeast Charter Schools Network (formerly the New York

Charter Schools Association), and the Colorado League of

Charter Schools (the sponsoring organizations), between

October 2011 and March 2012.

Survey results are analyzed along with data on enrollment

and operating revenues from the 2011-12 school year.2 Col-

lectively, they illustrate the severe consequences of a public

school sector that is denied public funding for its school

buildings.

How Charter School Funding WorksLike any enterprise, a public school has both short-term

operating costs, such as salaries and supplies, and long-

term capital expenses, predominantly to build or renovate

school facilities.

Background


9/28


5

In traditional district schools, operating costs are met

primarily by local taxes and basic foundational aid from

the state. Charter schools receive a share of this fundingindirectly: school districts count charter school students

as their own for revenue purposes, then pass through to

charter schools a share of the districts operating budget for

each pupil the charter schools enroll.3

Facility costs for traditional districts are typically shared

between local and state taxpayers, with the state paying

up to 90% of the cost in economically disadvantaged areas.

New Yorks state and local governments spent $5 billion on

school facilities in 2010-11.4

Charter schools do not receive any share of this funding,

either local or state. In fact, New York charter schoolsreceive no systematic public funding to cover facility costs

(see sidebar).

44% of charter schools in New York State are located entirely

in school district buildings and not charged rent.5 All of

these are located in New York City. The other 56% of the

states charter schools must make room in their budgets to

lease a facility, or raise private contributions to purchase or

build one.

Survey Method and Response

In order to understand how New York State charter schools

provide facilities in the absence of dedicated funding, the

sponsoring organizations used a survey method developed

by the Colorado League of Charter Schools (League), which

has now been administered in 12 other states.

The Leagues base survey tool is a comprehensive two-part

questionnaire, including a web-based survey for charter

school administrators and a comprehensive physical mea-

surement of all instructional spaces completed by New York

City Charter School Center consultants. The questionnaire

was originally developed by League staff, in consultation

with Hutton Architecture Studio in Denver, members of

the Leagues facility task force, and other experts. A draftquestionnaire was eld-tested with a small group of charter

schools before implementation across Colorado in 2008,

and the questionnaire was further rened after adminis-

tration in Colorado, Texas, Georgia, and Indiana in 2010-11.

DIVERSE FACILITIES FOR A DIVERSE CHARTERSCHOOL SECTOR

For New York charter schools, having a acility can

mean many dierent things. Lavelle Prep Char-ter School on Staten Island rents a ormer ofce

complex. VOICE Charter School in Queens leases a

ormer parochial school. King Center Charter School

in Bualo is located in a ormer Catholic church. TheBrighter Choice Charter School or Girls in Albany

has won historic preservation awards or saving a

public school building slated or demolition.

Broome Street Academy Charter School in Manhattanoccupies the top oors o the social service organi-

zation that provides its students with ree meals andhealthcare. In Brooklyn, Boys Excellence Charter

School built its own acility ater raising privatecontributions. New Roots Charter School in Ithaca is

located in an historic hotel where our United States

presidents have been guests.

Unique to New York City is the practice o colocating

multiple public schools inside o shared school build-

ings. When the Citys system o large school buildings

decided to embrace smaller schools, colocation wasonly a sensible practice. Today a majority o New

York City public schools (58%) are colocated.6

Under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, charter schools

have been allowed to colocate in district buildingsthat would otherwise be under-utilized. In the 2012-

13 school year, 62% o NYC charter schools are at

least partly located in a district school building,7

representing only 8% o colocated schools. Theseschools are not charged rent, and receive

certain building-related services at no cost.

The colocation o charter schools is subject to special

state laws meant to promote transparency, com-munication, and airness. For example, any time a

charter school spends at least $5,000 to improve its

portion o a colocated acility, a matching amountmust be provided to each non-charter school in thebuilding.8 Nevertheless, charter school colocation

is entirely at the discretion o the mayor, so Mr.

Bloombergs successor could choose end the practice

altogether. For more about charter school colocation,see Finding 2 (p. 10).


10/28


6

Following the successful administration of multiple states

facilities surveys, the League created the national Charter

School Facilities Initiative.

The Leagues base questionnaire includes more than 145

items, some requiring multiple responses, on topics including:

Facility information including year of construction and

site size;

Facility ownership, nancing, and annual payments;

Facility and classroom size and information technology

resources;

Facility amenities such as gyms, lunchrooms, libraries,

and playgrounds;

Information about colocation or other shared-usearrangements; and,

Future facility plans.

To adapt the questionnaire for use in New York State, the

three sponsoring organizations worked together to incor-

porate appropriate terminology and add new, state-specic

items. All charter schools in New York State were invited to

participate in the survey. Staff and consultants of the New

York City Charter School Center and Northeast Charter

Schools Network worked to encourage and assist schools

in completing questionnaires, then reviewed responses for

completeness and consistency and followed up with school

staff as necessary.

While the completed questionnaires are the primary source of

information for this study, public data from the New York State

Education Department was used to provide data on enrollment

counts per pupil funding; and free and reduced-price lunch

eligibility.

Statewide, 77% of charter schools completed the ques-

tionnaire at least in part. The group of responding charter

schools was broadly representative of the charter sector,

including over 69% of independent and network-afliated

charter schools; charter schools in each region of the state

with more than 10 schools; and charter schools in eachgrade range. Survey items with response rates lower than

60% were not included in this report, unless otherwise noted.

LIMITED FUNDING SOURCESSeveral sources o public unding have been available

to charter schools, although none is even remotely

comparable to a systematic, general unding sourceor charter school acilities.

New York State Stimulus Fund Grants, administered by

the SUNY Charter Schools Institute, have directed

$15.1 million to 79 charter school acilities since2006. Approximately 42% o charter schools have

received these non-renewing grants, which require

a demonstrated record o positive student outcomes

and/or signifcant progress toward goals set orthin the schools charter. The average award has been

$190,686 per school.9

The New York City Capital Matching Program providesmatching unds rom the New York City budget to

charter school construction projects. This City pro-

gram received $250 million in the 2005-2009 planning

period, and an additional $210 million in 2010-14. Thebuildings created through this program remain City

property; participating charter schools must provide

a signifcant contribution rom private philanthropy,

and then receive a long-term (up to 99-year) leaseinterest in the new building. The program has created

11 acilities or charter schools since 2005.

Historic Protection programs have helped to und

renovations at a small number o charter schoolshoused in historic buildings.

In addition to these limited unding sources, charter

schools have beneftted rom public programs that

reduce the cost o borrowing or acility projects.These programs, including Qualifed Zone Academy

Bonds and New Market Tax Credits, only serve to

make school acilities (slightly) less costly; they do not

provide new revenue or charter schools to spend.

In Albany, New York, the Brighter Choice Foundation

has developed a model o acility develop that relies

on philanthropic support, loans, access to the tax-

exempt bond market, and considerable expertise. Al-though nine charter schools have beneftted rom the

Brighter Choice model, it is unlikely to be replicated

in other parts o the state and would not be realistic

without private philanthropy. 10


11/28


Exhibit 1: Survey Response Rates

Eligible n Response rateschools (some part (some part2011-12 completed) completed)

All NYS 184 141 77%New York City 136 112 82%Capital Region 13 10 77%Central New York 11 8 73%Western New York 17 8 47%Other 7 3 43%Network-Afliated 81 59 73%Independent 103 82 80%Earliest grade level K-5 122 84 69%Earliest grade level 6-8 42 41 98%Earliest grade level 9-12 20 16 80%

WHAT IS A CHARTER SCHOOL?

Charter schools are ree public schools open toall children. In 2012-13, there were 209 charterschools operating in New York State. In 2011-12,when the survey presented here was conducted,there were 184.

Though public, charter schools are not run by alocal school district; instead, they are governedby independent, not-or-proft boards o trustees,and authorized and regulated by public agencies.Charter schools operate according to the termso a perormance contract or charter. Charter

schools commit to meeting specifc academic goals,and then make their own decisions about how toachieve them. I the goals are not met, the chartermay be revoked and the school closed.

Because they are independent rom the districtsystem, charter schools have greater exibility inthe way they operate. Charter schools are ree todevelop their own academic programs, set budgets,choose sta, set educational goals, oer a longerschool day and school year, and establish their ownstandards or student behavior. Enrollment at a

charter school is always by a parents choice, nevermandatory.

Charter schools are tuition-ree and non-sectarian.Students are admitted by a random lottery, with-out regard to their academic background. Charterschools ollow state standards and participate instate exams. They are subject to health, saety,non-discrimination, and open meetings laws, aswell as specifc regulations to ensure air admis-sions and prevent conicts o interest.

Charter schools commonly open their doors with

only one or two grade levels, then gradually buildout by adding one grade level per year until theyreach their authorized grade range.


12/28


FINDING 1:

NEW YORK CHARTER SCHOOLSDIVERT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOCOVER UNFUNDED FACILITY COSTS.

In the city of Buffalo, 2013 marks the nal year of a mas-

sive school reconstruction project: a 13-year, 48-school

renovation effort that cost $1.3 billion.11 State taxpayers

funded 94% of these costs, with the remainder paid from a

local reserve fund. In the end, as a local news site exulted,

reconstruction would cost the Buffalo City School District

virtually nothing.12

Another public school in Buffalo, Tapestry Charter School,

faced a far different outlook. After moving facilities threetimes in its rst eight years of operation, the school nally

settled in a building on an industrial lot that had previously

been home to a bowling alley and grocery store. Tapestry

Charter Schools two-phase renovation project cost about

$15 million.13 A private developer in Buffalo gave condence

to a bank to allow Tapestry to nance the majority of this

project; the rest had to come through fundraising and

cutting into the schools operational budget.

We asked charter schools about their facility ownership,

size, and ongoing costs, including rent, debt service, and

maintenance expenses.

New York charter schools reported spending an average

of $2,025 per student, excluding schools in school district

buildings. In New York City the average was $2,350 per

student, the equivalent of 17.4 percent of NYC schools

designated per-pupil operations funding.

For an average charter school in New York State, with an

enrollment of 254 students, this amounts to an annual,

unfunded expense of $515,137. In New York City, where

the average charter school has 289 students enrolled, the

annual total is $679,150.14 In fact, even these unfunded

expenses do not reect all of the costs of useful educational

amenities, which charter schools often do without (seeFinding 3 on p.11).

Exhibit 2: Average Facility-Related SpendingPer Student

Avg. per student

New York State, excluding $2,025NYCDOE space (n=52)

New York City, excluding $2,350NYCDOE space (n=28)

Capitol region (n=10) $2,020

Central New York (n=7) $957

Western New York (n=8)* $1,650*

*47% response rate

Exhibit 3: Average Facility-Related Spending PerStudent as Share o Per-Pupil Funding

Share of per pupil fundingRegion spent on facilities

New York State, excluding 15.1%NYCDOE space (n=52)

New York City, excluding 17.4%NYCDOE space (n=28)

Capitol region (n=10) 14.9%

Central New York (n=7) 7.9%

Western New York (n=8)* 14.1%

*47% response rate

Statewide, charter schools total facility costs amountedto an estimated $81.7 million in 2011-12. Depending onassumptions, this suggests a 2012-13 statewide cost of

approximately $93 million, for which charter schools do notreceive reliable public funding (see sidebar on p.6).

Some charter school buildings are owned by the school itselfor the local school district; others are owned by anothergovernment body, an afliated nonprot, an unafliated non-prot, or a for-prot organization.

WHAT $515,137 WOULD BUY A CHARTER SCHOOL15

I the average charter school had public unding to payor its public acility, it would ree enough unds rom

other sources to pay or:

6

charter school teachers salary and benefts;or

6 charter school guidance counselors andsocial workers; or

34 two-day, 50-student feld trips to WashingtonD.C.; or

344 Macbook Pro computers with 13-inchdisplays; or350 days o teacher proessional development.

Findings


13/28


Exhibit 4: Charter School Facilities by Type oOwner (n=129)

Note: Ownership is weighted by ownership share rom each source(e.g. 50% nonproft ownership is counted as a nonproft owner o hal abuilding). The size o charter school acilities also varies, across the stateand also within regions.

Exhibit 5: Distribution o Charter Schools by FacilitySize (n = 118)

district unrelatednonprofit for-profitcompany relatednonprofit school othergovermententity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

43%

16%14% 13%

10%

4%

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

110-120

120-130

130-140

150-160

140-150

160-170

170-180

180-190

190-200

Countofschools

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10

18

28

21

13

6

3 3 32 21 1

0 01 1 11

3

Facility size range (square feet in thousands)

ESTIMATING TOTAL STATEWIDE FACILITY COST

To estimate statewide acility costs, we took the per-pupil acility costs by region rom Exhibit 2, then multiplied by theestimated number o charter school students in that region.

2011-12 ESTIMATES 2012-13 ESTIMATES

Average per pupil Total students16 Total acilities Total students17 Total acilitiespayment, 2011-12 spending spending

NYC DOE space $108 27,548 $2,961,467 33,763 $3,629,622NYC non-DOE space $2,350 20,565 $48,330,070 24,554 $57,704,332Capital Region $2,020 3,252 $6,569,557 3,227 $6,519,390Central New York $957 3,718 $3,557,570 3,959 $3,788,581Western New York* $1,650 8,661 $14,291,228 8,968 $14,797,681Other $2,650 2,255 $5,975,429 2,383 $6,390,967

STATEWIDE TOTAL - 65,999 $81,685,321 76,855 $92,830,573

*47% response rate

Included in this estimate is an average per-pupil acility expense o $107.50 or students in NYCDOE buildings. These ex-

penses relate to building improvements (which are then matched by the DOE or colocated schools) and/or capital expenses

or a non-DOE building to be used in the schools uture.

Charter enrollment estimates are or all schools, including those that did not respond, and were derived rom preliminary

BEDS day enrollment or 2011-12, known grade expansion, and chartered enrollments.

Some charter schools have students in both DOE space and non-DOE space. In these cases, their projected enrollments were

split in hal and attributed evenly into DOE space and non-DOE space.


14/28


FINDING 2:

SPACE IN DISTRICT BUILDINGS HASBEEN A RELIABLE RESOURCE FORCHARTER SCHOOLS ONLY IN NEWYORK CITY, DUE TO A DISCRETIONARYLOCAL POLICY.

For La Cima Elementary Charter School and Bedford-Stuyve-

sant Collegiate Charter School, paying the rent without

public facility funding has not been a problem; their landlord

doesnt charge it. The two Brooklyn schools share space

with a district school known as M.S. 267 Math, Science, and

Technology, all in a single building owned by the New York

City Department of Education.

Under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City has al-

lowed charter schools to use space in otherwise under-used

school buildings, colocating with other schools in the same

building just as a majority of district schools do. Colocation

is hardly ideal, of course, but in a crowded city where parents

expect school choices, public educators work to make the

best of it.18 When charter schools do colocate, the buildings

they share are still less crowded than average, according to

City statistics.19

Sometimes there is even room for collaboration; in 2012,

M.S. 267 and its two charter school neighbors came to-

gether to plan and build a new playground for the stretch ofpavement they all share.20 Charter school colocation in New

York City is deeply uncertain, however; it exists at the sole

discretion of the mayors appointed chancellor, and Mayor

Bloomberg will leave ofce in 2014.

We asked charter schools about any space-sharing arrange-

ments they had in place. A majority of New York City charter

schools reported being colocated in a district building;

including survey non-respondents, 63% of charter schools

were located in school district buildings in 2011-12. (62% are

in 2012-13.)21

Survey respondents also conrmed that no school districtsother than New York City share space with charter schools,

even when there are vacant buildings. Charter schools did

report space-sharing arrangements with other organizations

including school service organizations and unrelated non-

prot organizations.

Exhibit 6: Charter School Facilities bySpace Sharing (n=141)

Exhibit 7: Charter Schools by Space Type(2012-13)22

Note: NYC district space category includes charter schools with studentsin both district and non-district space.

10

do notsharebuilding

share withdistrictschool

share withschoolservice

nonprofit

share withothernonprofit

share withothercharterschool

share withother

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

35%

44%

11% 11%9%

4%

Non-NYC schools innon-district space

NYC schools innon-district space

NYC schools indistrict space

29%24%

47%


15/28


FINDING 3:

MANY CHARTER SCHOOLS DOWITHOUT IMPORTANT AMENITIES.

When Coney Island Prep Charter School opened in 2009,

it occupied a rented space inside of a New York City public

housing project: eight rooms on a single oor in a commu-

nity center, plus access to a small gymnasium. Although the

building was safe and complied with all regulations, it had

no science lab, library, or lunchroom. Students ate lunch

at their desks. It gets claustrophobic, school founder

Jacob Mnookin told the New York Daily News.23 An education

reporter would later say it was the most cramped school I

ever visited but they had a lot of heart.24

Coney Island Prep has since moved its middle school

grades into a school district building, and will lease a

private building to house its high school grades. The need

to do without important educational amenities, however, is

still a common problem in the charter school sector.

We asked charter schools about their facilities special

amenities. Among survey respondents, 98% of charter

schools have a gym, cafeteria, auditorium, or multi-purpose

room. Only half have libraries. Fewer than half have music

rooms and fewer than half have science labs.

Exhibit 8: Percentage o Charter Schools withFacility Amenities

11

health room

33%

33%

44%

47%

65%

65%

71%

74%

83%

cafeteria

special educationresource room

kitchen where hotmeals can be prepared

gyms

playground(or access to one nearby)

art room

library

music room

science lab

auditorium

multi-purposeroom

computer lab

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

77%

58%

45%

50%


16/28


FINDING 4:

THE FACILITIES CRUNCH WILLINTENSIFY AS MORE STUDENTSENROLL IN CHARTER SCHOOLS.

For Hyde Leadership Charter School in the Bronx, access to

free space in an underutilized district building was an enor-

mous benet. As the school added grade levels, however,

the space became untenable. With over 700 students from

kindergarten through high school packed into two oors, the

school held classes in hallways and behind curtains.25 It was

terrible, one student told the news site GothamSchools.26

In 2011, Hyde Leadership opened a newly-constructed fa-

cility for its high school students, made possible by privatecontributions and matching funds from a City program that

supported 11 charter school facility projects over a decade

[see sidebar on p. 6]. The 30,000 square foot building was

developed by Civic Builders, a nonprot real estate devel-

oper, and was designed to embody the schools mission and

values. It also carries an annual cost of about $1 million.

New Yorks charter sector is poised for dramatic growth in

the next four years, thanks to strong demand from families;

new charter schools opening under the limits prescribed

by existing law; and existing charter schools building out

by adding grade levels. How much of this growth can be

accommodated under existing arrangements will deter-mine the scale of the unfunded mandate created by charter

schools lack of reliable facility funding.

We asked charter schools whether their current buildings

would accommodate their planned growth in the future.

73% of surveyed charter schools plan to increase their

enrollment by 2015-16. 45% of charter schools report that

they do not have adequate space to serve their student

population.

Exhibit 9: Charter Schools by Expected Growth andSpace Availability (n= 140)

Some schools with emerging space needs are in private

space now. Others are in New York City district buildings,

but expect to outgrow that space as enrollment expands.

And there will be new charter schools opening, serving

approximately 24,000 students by 2015-16, all of whom

must have a physical seat somewhere.27

Projecting the need for seats in charter school facilities is

an inexact exercise, particularly given the uncertainty ofcolocation in New York City, but it is possible to estimate

based on reasonable assumptions.

New York State is likely to need 41,000 to 45,000 new charter

school seats in the next four years. If colocation were to

conform to historical trends, 44% of these seats would be

provided by the New York City Department of Education, but

such a high rate of colocation is widely viewed as unlikely.

It is reasonable, then, to expect that New York State charter

schools will need to rent or build or lease facilities for at

least 30,000 students in the next four years.

Growing, do not haveneccessary spacethrough FY 2016 Not growing

Growing, have necessaryspace through FY 2016

27.1%

28.1%

44.7%


17/28


Exhibit 10: Projected New Seats Necessary inCharter School Facilities by 2016, by Source28

13

totalseats by

2016

122,156

seats in newschools (to be

authorized)

9,256

seats in newschools

(authorized)

14,890

new seatsin existingschools

21,155

existingseats2013

76,855


18/28


A PROFOUND INEQUITY

Parents with children in public schools take certain thingsfor granted. One of the most basic assumptions is that the

public will provide the school a building, an obvious neces-

sity for schools and a major area of government investment.

If the public school is a public charterschool in New York

State, however, it likely will not receive public facility

funding under state law.

That leaves charter schools, alone among public schools

in the state, to fend for their own facility needs. Charter

schools lack of facility funding represents a profound

inequity in our public education system: they are asked to

educate public school students without a basic resource

that other public schools take for granted.

Given charter school educators famous determination to

overcome constraints, they would be the last to claim, as

some extremists have, that funding is all that is required

to produce an equitable education. At the same time, no

public educatorcharter or otherwisewould suppose that

educational resources are irrelevant to learning.

Most parents and educators recognize that to receive a

high-quality public education, students need equitable

resources andadults who make the most of them. While

charter schools exibility and accountability can allow

them to work effectively, its up to lawmakers to provideequitable resources.

As more families choose charter schools and the once-

experimental charter sector grows, however, many of the

states decade-old choices about charter school policy have

been revisited. Charter schools are required, for example,

to enroll and retain students with special needs at rates

comparable to local district schools. They are banned from

hiring for-prot school management companies. They are

subject to municipal laws related to conicts of interest,

and are free to operate as multiple schools under a single

board. Many of these changes came in 2010.

Now it is time to reconsider charter school facility support.

New Yorks charter schools are public schools without

public support for their school buildings. Charter school

students are effectively shortchanged by millions of dollars

as their schools divert operating funds from teachers, psy-

chologists, counselors, and other critical needs, simply to

pay the rent. This arrangement has never been defensible

as a matter of educational equality, and to continue todays

inequitable policies at a larger scale will only make them

more harmful and more difcult to address.

This serious and systematic inequality, combined with

the parent-fueled growth of charter schools, make this a

crucial moment for public education in New York.

If state policy makers choose to do nothing, thousands more

public school students will receive lower amounts of public

support because of the type of public school their families

chose. Charter schools, and particularly those without

extensive support networks, will be forced to operate with

limitations that other public schools do not share. Indeed,

as other states act to remove such obstacles, New York will

have stopped its progress, leaving charter school progress

at the discretion of local mayors and private funders, andsending an unmistakable signal that the state will no longer

be a leader in supporting high-quality charter schools.

The status quo is simply not acceptable. In a system of

public schools, fair funding should be systematic. In order

to create the best conditions for academic achievement in

New York, our states students and families must be able to

choose among public schools, without submitting to inequi-

table support if their choice is a charter.

The following recommendations suggest a more equitable

path.

INDEPENDENT IRONY

While tens o thousands o amilies have chosen to

enroll their children in charter schools afliated withlarge networks, tens o thousands more choose charter

schools that are independent or part o small networks.

Both structures are consistent with the letter and stated

purposes o New Yorks charter school law.

Some critics argue, however, that charter schools should

only be considered legitimate when they are indepen-

dent, rooted in specifc communities, and not afliated

with strong fnancial or political supporters. Many o

these same critics oppose equitable acility unding orcharter schools.

Ironically, though, the present inequity is most harmul,and most discouraging, to precisely the kinds o charter

schools these critics avor. Independent charter schools,

without large-scale efciencies or philanthropic sup-

port (particularly at the start-up stage), lose the mostina bring-your-own-building systemi they are able to

open at all.

Discussion


19/28


1. CREATE A STEADY SOURCE OF

FUNDING FOR CHARTER SCHOOLFACILITIES.Colocation in district space, by itself, will never fully ad-

dress charter schools growing facility needs, even in New

York City. It is not a panacea. Charter schools are needed in

neighborhoods without available district space, and char-

ter schools valuable freedom from bureaucracy would be

signicantly impaired if the local district were always the

landlord.

To nally remedy New Yorks inequitable funding of district

and charter school facilities, New York State should create

a new, annual funding stream for charter schools facility

needs. Like funding for charter school operations, charterfacility funding would be tied to local costs and paid on a

per-pupil basis. Just as in calculations of operating funding,

the number of pupils would be calculated based on actual

attendance, not a single count day. Unlike charter school

operating funds, facility funding would be paid from the

state budget.

A simple, per-pupil payment would leave each charter

school with the exibility to procure facilities in the way, and

on the schedule, that makes the most sense for its partic-

ular circumstances. Existing regulations of charter school

facilities would still apply, but charter schools would be free

to put their facility funds toward rent, renovation, construc-

tion, maintenance, or any combination of these.

This exibility would also free charter schools to better

follow students needs, even into New York City neigh-

borhoods where district buildings are overcrowded. More

importantly, the basic fact that charter school students

need facilities would no longer be ignored by New Yorks

school funding system.

2. CONTINUE THE PRACTICE OF

COLOCATION IN NYC, AND REQUIREOTHER DISTRICTS TO SHAREAVAILABLE SPACE ALSO.

Colocation represents a vitalthough imperfect and par-

tialpart of any charter school facilities solution. Giving

public schools access to public school buildings is right in

principle, and more efcient use of existing public resources

such as school buildings is of obvious benet to city and state

taxpayers. Beyond those basics, there will always be room to

debate practices tangential to charter colocation, but when

space is available there is no reason to exclude its use by

charter schools.

Charter school colocation makes special logistical sensein New York City, given its high real estate costs, large

existing school buildings, and changing portfolio of small

district schools. New York Citys next mayor should afrm

that charter schools are part of the citys system of public

education; respect existing colocation arrangements; and

approach new siting decisionsfor charter anddistrict

schoolswith a genuine commitment to fairness, trans-

parency, and educational choice.

Yet colocation need not be limited to New York City. Although

other school districts may have underused space available

less frequently, their excess capacity could be vital to a

charter schoolparticularly one in its rst years, serving few

students. In Buffalo, for example, about a dozen school build-

ings eventually will be unused once the districts building

project is completed, with ve sites already vacant, accord-

ing to estimates from Buffalo ReformED, a local education

advocacy group. New York school districts should be required

to disclose their vacant and signicantly underused school

spaces and make them available for charter school use, sub-

ject to regulations of the Commissioner of Education. Charter

schools should have the right of rst refusal to purchase or

lease a closed or unused district facility.

Recommendations


20/28


3. IMPLEMENT NEW FUNDING

BASED ON EQUITY, AUTONOMY,AND ACCOUNTABILITY.Creating and implementing a new funding stream for char-

ter school facilities will involve decisions large and small.

Each one should respect the essential principles of equity,

autonomy, and accountability.

As a measure to improve the equity of public school funding,

new facility funding for charter schools must avoid creating

new inequities. The amount of funding, for example, should

not be carelessly extrapolated from spending data, since

subsidies or other unusual arrangements could skew sim-

ple averages. Colocation must be accounted for as well.

As a measure that would extend charter school autonomy,

new funding should not simply add charter schools to exist-

ing funding programs for school districts, such as building

aid. Not only were these programs not designed for small

and fast-growing charters, they often involve prohibitive

administrative burdens and are increasingly recognized as

needing reform themselves.

New funding should come with appropriate accountability.

Charter applicants must be vetted by authorizers that have

sufcient resources themselves. Existing charter schools

must be required to properly account for facility projects.

Charter schools must still be closed for poor academic per-formance, and when that happens there must be provisions

to ensure state-funded assets can be reclaimed.

Public charter schools are already responsible for educat-

ing children, complying with extensive laws and regulations,

and managing millions of public dollars. They can also be

entrusted with equitable facility funding in a way that is

carefully designed and entirely principled.

4. MAKE EQUITABLE, STUDENT-BASED

FUNDING A REALITY FORALL

PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DISTRICT ORCHARTER.

Ultimately, the facilities funding problem for charter schools

could be solved if charter students were funded in an amount

equal to their peers in district schools. This is a severe

inequity in New Yorks school funding system, but it is far

from the only one. New Yorks entire system for nancing

public education is on an unsustainable and inequitable path.

Spending mandates, tax caps, and incompletely-implement-

ed reforms from past years prevent education funding from

benetting all students equitably. Insolvency is a concern

shared by educators and school leaders around the state.The Governors New NY Education Reform Commission has

re-convened, in part to grapple with these broader structur-

al issues. New Yorks leaders soon will have no choice but

to act, and the Commission is positioned to offer insights

and solutions that can be adopted at scale.

Changes to the current funding system should be bold.

New York has the opportunity to enact true student-based

budgeting, and can ensure that school fundingwhether

charter or districtfollows the needs of the student, not the

lines of a map or the interests of adults.


21/28


17

APPENDIX:

Capital RegionThe Capital Region encompasses charter schools in the

cities of Albany and Troy. In 2011-12 there were 13 charter

schools in the region, of which 10 (77%) responded to the

facility survey.

Earliest Eligible Charter schoolgrade level charter schools respondents

K-5 6 4 (67%)6-8 5 4 (80%)9-12 2 2 (100%)All 13 10 (77%)

$2,020 per pupilaverage acility costequivalent to14.9%o per-pupil operating unds

Who owns the acility?

What amenities are in the acility?

Will space be sufcient or expected growthby 2016?

SchoolUnrelated nonprofit

Related nonprofit

For-profit company

50%20%

20%

10%

No

Not Growing

Yes

48%40%

12%

health room

69%

85%

23%

46%

46%

50%

80%

100%

100%

cafeteria



gyms

playground

(or access to one nearby)

art room

library

music room

science lab

auditorium

multi-purposeroom

computer lab

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

77%

77%

38%

15%

Results by Region


22/28


Central New York Region

The Central New York Region encompasses charter schoolsin Rochester, Syracuse, and Ithaca. In 2011-12 there were

11 charter schools in the region, of which 8 (73%) responded

to the facility survey.


K-5 6 4 (67%)6-8 4 4 (100%)9-12 1 0 (0%)All 11 8 (73%)

$957per pupil

average acility cost

equivalent to7.9%o per-pupil operating unds




School

Unrelated nonprofit

Related nonprofitFor-profit company

14%

37%

37%12%

No

Not Growing

Yes

63%

25%14%

health room

40%

0%

70%

70%

63%

100%

cafeteria



gyms


art room

library

music room

science lab

auditorium

multi-purposeroom

computer lab

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

70%

40%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%


23/28


New York City Region

The New York City Region encompasses charter schoolsin the ve boroughs. In 2011-12 there were 136 charter

schools in the region, of which 112 (82%) responded to the

facility survey.


K-5 91 69 (76%)6-8 31 31 (100%)9-12 14 12 (86%)All 136 112 (82%)

$2,350per pupil

average acility cost,excluding districtcolocations





School

Other goverment entity

Unrelatednonprofit

Related nonprofit

For-profit company

District

55%4% 6%

15%

10%10% No

Not Growing

Yes 47%

25%

28%

health room

27%

53%

69%

78%

cafeteria



gyms


art room

library

music room

science lab

auditorium

multi-purposeroom

computer lab

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

76%

70%

26%

45%

44%

47%

75%

72%

53%


24/28


Western New York Region

The Western New York Region encompasses charter schoolsin Buffalo, Tonawanda, Niagara Falls, and Lackawanna. In

2011-12 there were 17 charter schools in the region, of

which 8 (47%) responded to the facility survey.


K-5 13 5 (38%)6-8 1 0 (0%)9-12 3 3 (100%)All 17 8 (47%)

$1,650per pupil

average acility cost





School

0%Related nonprofitUnrelated nonprofit

DistrictOther goverment entity

For-profit company

14%

86%

No

Not growing

Yes

25% 25%

50%

health room

60%

60%

60%

20%

20%

80%

38%

38%

100%

100%

100%

cafeteria



gyms


art room

library

music room

science lab

auditorium

multi-purposeroom

computer lab

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

90%

90%


25/28


Other Regions

This report also reects responses from charter schoolsin areas where response rates were not high enough to

report by region, including (but not limited to) Long Island

and Hudson Valley regions. Charter schools in this category

were located in the cities of Calverton, Hempstead, Mount

Vernon, Roosevelt, Wainscott, and Yonkers.

In 2011-12 there were 7 charter schools in these areas, of

which 3 (43%) responded to the facility survey.


K-5 6 2 (33%)6-8 1 1 (100%)

9-12 0 0 (n/a)All 7 3 (43%)


26/28


22

22

EndnotesNote on Methodology

This report analyzes survey results slightly differently than a recentreport from the Charter School Facilities Initiative. Response rates are

tabulated in terms of legal charter entities, which may use multiplefacilities, not the facilities themselves. This report also categorizes theschools space type for all schools, including non-respondents, based onpublic records. (The CSFI report dened charter schools as being locatedin private facilities if and only if they reported having either bond, loan,or rental expenses.) See Colorado League of Charter Schools and theNational Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Charter School FacilitiesInitiative: Initial Findings from Ten States. April 2013. Web. 5 June 2013:http://www.facilitiesinitiative.org/media/3080/csnationalsummaryfnl_april2013_.pdf

1 Approximation based on IBOs nding of a $2,358 disparity in the2009-10 school year, minus increase in NYC charter school funding of$1,084 since that year. Approximation does not reect charter schoolsdisputes with IBO methodology. Domanico, Ray & Smith, Yolanda.Charter Schools Housed in the Citys School Buildings Get More Pub-lic Funding per Student than Traditional Public Schools. IndependentBudget Ofce Web Blog. 15 February 2011. Web. 4 June 2013. http://ibo.nyc.ny.us/cgi-park/?p=272

2 Enrollment and per pupil funding were obtained from the New YorkState Education Department.

3 Both charter and district schools also receive certain state and federalfunds directly (e.g. Title I), and a few items must be provided from thedistrict to the charter school in-kind (e.g. textbooks). All such costsare excluded from theformula for charter schools per-pupil operatingfunding.

4 Dixon, Mark. Public Education Finances: 2011, Table 9. United StatesCensus Bureau. May 2013. Web. 5 June 2013. http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/11f33pub.pdf

5

From Charter Center records, in the 2012-13 school year, statewide,91 out of 209 charter schools are entirely in district space.

6 New York City Charter School Center. Unequal Shares: The Surpris-ing Facts About Charter Schools and Overcrowding Update. Novem-ber 2012. Web. 3 June 2013. http://www.nyccharterschools.org/sites/default/les/resources/unequal_shares_update.pdf Unequal Sharesreport based on NYC SCA Blue Book: NYC School ConstructionAuthority. (2012). Enrollment, Capacity, and Utilization Report, 2011-2012 School Year. Web. 3 June 2013. http://nycsca.org/Community/CapitalPlanManagementReportsData/Enrollment/2011-2012_Classic.pdf

7 From Charter Center records, 98 of 159 charter schools in NYC have atleast some students in district space.

8 See NYS Ed. Law, Article 56 2850 3d

9 SUNY Charter Schools Institute data10 The Brighter Choice Foundations (BCF) facility funding model

includes start-up grants, school facilities, a revolving loan fund, andtechnical assistance, and spans project stages including design,approval, development, and construction. In a typical case, BCFuses philanthropic investments to fund construction, then repaysthe investment with proceeds from interim nancing in the form ofleveraged loans from Community Development Finance Institutionsvia the federal new Markets Tax Credits program. The program allowsschools to lease their facilities at below-market rates, then, afterseven years, purchase their facilities from BCF at cost, using proceedsfrom tax-exempt municipal bonds.

11 $1.3 billion is the sum of $173.47 million in Phase I, $326.89 millionin technology improvements, $358.72 million in Phase III, $8.667million more in additional investment proceeds for Phase III, $292.53million in Phase IV, $175.0 million in Phase V. Buffalo Fiscal Sta-bility Authority. (2012). Annual Report of the Buffalo Fiscal Stability

Authority. pp. 75-78. Web. 3 June 2013. http://www.bfsa.state.ny.us/reports/fye2012AnnualReport.pdf

12 McDonnell, Paul. School Reconstruction Buffalos Largest Histor-ical Preservation Project. Ever. Bualo Rising. 27 June 2012. Web. 3June 2013. http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/06/schoolreconstruc-tion- buffalos-largest-historic-preservation-project-ever.html

13 Felton, Todd. Congratulations to Tapestry Charter School on theirnew home. Expeditionary Learning. 1 October 2010. Web. 3 June 2013.http://elschools.org/press-center/congratulations-tapestry-charter-school- their-new-home

14 Charter Center analysis.


16 Enrollment data as of BEDS day, 5 October 2011 from NYS ReportCards. Web. 3 June 2013. https://reportcards.nysed.gov/

17 Charter center estimates based on previous NYS Report Card studentper cohort enrollments and charter school expansion plans.

18 Colocated charter schools sometimes do spend their own money tomake improvements to the district buildings they share, but when thathappens, each non-charter school in the same building to receive amatching improvement grant.

19 New York City Charter School Center. Unequal Shares.

20 NYC Collaborates. A New Place to Play. 5 November 2012. Web. 3June 2013. http://nyccollaborates.org/stories/a-new-place-to-play

21 From Charter Center records, 98 of 159 charter schools in NYC have aleast some students in district space.


23 Chapman, Ben. Plan to give cramped Coney Island charter schoolmore room creates controversy. New York Daily News. 7 April 2011.Web. 3 June 2013. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/plan-give-cramped- coney-island-charter-school-room-creates-controversy-article-1.114588

24 Chapman, Ben. Twitterpost. 4 April 2013. Web. 3 June 2013. https://twitter.com/NYDNBenChapman/status/319944579782684674

25 Lestch, Corinne. Pride swells as Hyde Leadership Charter Schoolsrst graduating class sees new building. New York Daily News. Web, 6June 2013. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/prideswells-hyde-leadership-charter-school-graduating-class-sees-new-build-ing-article-1.959854

26 Decker, Geoff. Despite price tag, a charter school nds perks in pri-vate space. GothamSchools. 4 October 2011. Web, 6 June 2013. http://

gothamschools.org/2011/10/04/despite-price-tag-a-charterschool-nds-perks-in-private-space/

27 From authorized enrollments of schools chartered, but not yet open,in addition to estimated enrollments for not-yet-authorized schools.For more information, see exhibit 10.

28 Estimates for not-yet-authorized schools are based on conservativeassumptions of 13 new elementary schools and 13 new secondaryschools statewide each year, and 89 students per cohort, which comefrom experienced sector-wide averages. Charter Center analysis.


27/28


23


28/28

building inequality: how the lack of facility funding hurts new york’s public charter school...

Documents